Pheasant nesting in garden
Discussion
Newarch said:
I’d suggest that the British landscape and wildlife is now wholly artificial. It contains goodness knows how many imported species including livestock and many wild animals, and lacks many older species including brown bears, wolves and beaver. Having commissioned quite a few paleo environmental reports I’d suggest most people wouldn’t recognise this country’s natural environment, which tended to comprise dense bog oak or alder and would have resembled what modern day railway embankments look like, minus all the rubbish obviously.
As to pheasants they’re scarcely the worst offenders for damaging the ecosphere, I imagine most predators do rather well out of the endless amount of roadkill where I live.
I do agree that virtually the whole of the British landscape is now artificial but I think it's a bit nonsensical to suggest that what little wildlife we do have that has managed to cling on and adapt and survive in that landscape isn't native.As to pheasants they’re scarcely the worst offenders for damaging the ecosphere, I imagine most predators do rather well out of the endless amount of roadkill where I live.
You mention bears and wolves and dense Oak forests, but plenty of our current wildlife species existed alongside those bears and wolves in those Oak forests.
It also depends how far back in time you want to go when classifying what is the natural UK landscape... I'm pretty sure that in your quoted time period of 15,000 years ago that actually the UK was mostly covered in an ice sheet and what land was exposed was barren empty Tundra and marshland... not dense Oak forests full of bears and wolves (and seemingly little else according to your interpretation)
No offence intended but for someone who is involved in the commissioning of paleo environmental reports you seem to have a pretty ropey grasp of the natural history of the British Isles.
Evanivitch said:
It is. There is no wilderness in Great Britain. It's all managed land either now or historically.
Not quite true, historically Britain had some amazing wilderness. but one thing thats for certain is our landscape is entirely unrecognisable from what it would have looked like only a few thousand years ago. The moment man entered what is now modern day Britain, the fate of its wildlife and landscape was sealed. Evanivitch said:
It is. There is no wilderness in Great Britain. It's all managed land either now or historically.
There's certainly not any vast tracts of pristine natural wilderness but there are still some tiny pockets of natural unmanaged habitats... ancient woodland, heathland, marshland etc, so it's not strictly accurate to say the UK is a ''wholly'' artificial landscape.Silvanus said:
Not quite true, historically Britain had some amazing wilderness. but one thing thats for certain is our landscape is entirely unrecognisable from what it would have looked like only a few thousand years ago. The moment man entered what is now modern day Britain, the fate of its wildlife and landscape was sealed.
Agreed. However humans, in the form of Ice Age hunter gatherers considerably predate the modern landscape and in fact the formation of the British Isles archipelago. My argument about most British flora and fauna is that most of it has come into the country quite recently and does not present the mature ecosystem you might see elsewhere in the world. Also an important part of the development of the appearance of our country has been the introduction of foreign species, something which characterises country parks and cities for example. I dislike this tendency to remove non native species purely because they are non native, I was once very dismayed to see a lovely old Wellingtonia taken down and replaced with a good English Oak in a 19th century pleasance. The decision had been taken by someone who didn’t understand the reasons why the park was full of imported species.
I am aware of the distinction made between invasive species, i.e. those regarded as harmful to any native species and non invasive species and yes it could and has been argued that gamebirds including pheasants constitute a invasive population, mainly due to the sheer numbers in the country, but they are not much of an issue when taken on an individual basis.
define 'native'. Where's the cut-off point - 10/100/1000/10000 years? Is native whatever was left when the land-bridge disappeared, if it what was here before the Romans pitched up? Would we have had similar things t0 Emu/Platypus/Koala/Knotweed without human interference? On that point/question where is your cut-off for banning species from here and what about invaders who come through natural means?
Silvanus said:
Evanivitch said:
It is. There is no wilderness in Great Britain. It's all managed land either now or historically.
Not quite true, historically Britain had some amazing wilderness. but one thing thats for certain is our landscape is entirely unrecognisable from what it would have looked like only a few thousand years ago. The moment man entered what is now modern day Britain, the fate of its wildlife and landscape was sealed. Of course Britain used to have wilderness, everywhere was wilderness before mankind touched it. But being such a small and relatively densely populated land there's not a single area that hasn't been used by humankind.
DodgyGeezer said:
define 'native'. Where's the cut-off point - 10/100/1000/10000 years? Is native whatever was left when the land-bridge disappeared, if it what was here before the Romans pitched up? Would we have had similar things t0 Emu/Platypus/Koala/Knotweed without human interference? On that point/question where is your cut-off for banning species from here and what about invaders who come through natural means?
Many people use the land bridge definition as to what is native or not (there are others). With regards to what is classed as non native and what is classed as invasive a a huge complicated and facinating subject. Its certainly a subject that a few people here enjoy and have knowledge of. Perhaps its worth its own thread. We could stick to pheasants hereDodgyGeezer said:
define 'native'. Where's the cut-off point - 10/100/1000/10000 years? Is native whatever was left when the land-bridge disappeared, if it what was here before the Romans pitched up? Would we have had similar things t0 Emu/Platypus/Koala/Knotweed without human interference? On that point/question where is your cut-off for banning species from here and what about invaders who come through natural means?
I don't think we have to be so clearly defined as native and non-native.As the climate changes (and ecosystem) there are plenty of things that will join our waters and land.
But things that have either escaped from gardens/captivity or been brought over through infested goods and trade aren't native, and in many cases are destructive.
I appreciate that goes back a long, long way in our history, with some things we now consider 'native'.
Evanivitch said:
Silvanus said:
Evanivitch said:
It is. There is no wilderness in Great Britain. It's all managed land either now or historically.
Not quite true, historically Britain had some amazing wilderness. but one thing thats for certain is our landscape is entirely unrecognisable from what it would have looked like only a few thousand years ago. The moment man entered what is now modern day Britain, the fate of its wildlife and landscape was sealed. Of course Britain used to have wilderness, everywhere was wilderness before mankind touched it. But being such a small and relatively densely populated land there's not a single area that hasn't been used by humankind.
Silvanus said:
Where did I say there was anywhere in the UK not touched by man? You were the one that said there had never been any wilderness historically. Maybe we are crossing wires or misunderstanding one another. The natural environment in the UK is absolutely ruined in most parts
We've crossed wires. I didn't say never has there been historically.Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff